CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Food Safety and HygieneRisk Perception and ManagementMeat and Animal Product Quality

A cross-sectional survey of consumers’ risk perception and hygiene of retail meat: a Nigerian study

Open access
Odetokun, Ismail A., Borokinni, Baasim O., Bakare, Samiat D., Ghali-Mohammed, Ibraheem, Alhaji, Nma B.·2021·Food Protection Trends
DOI 10.4315/1541-9576-41.3.274
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Consumers' perception of food safety risk could influence their food consumption habits.This questionnaire-based (n = 327) cross-sectional study assessed consumers' attitudes about and perception of retail meat risk.Also, the hygiene of meat display tables (n = 105) and retail meat (n = 107) sold to consumers was determined using total aerobic plate count and total coliform count.Most respondents were single (82.6%) and had tertiary educational status (89.3%).Most of the respondents preferred beef (60.9%) over other meat types and made purchases from retailers (71.3%).Overall, the risk perception score on retail meat safety reported by respondents was above average (56%, n = 83), although consumers (53.8%, n = 176) declared that meat consumption is worth the risk.Meat source (χ 2 = 16.65,P = 0.034) and processed meat products (χ 2 = 28.22,P = 0.005) were associated with food safety risk.Respondents opined that meat processors (weighted mean = 3.85%) could influence food safety.The freshness of meat (weighted mean = 2.54%) was the main criterion used by consumers to determine retail meat safety.Sampled meat and meat display tables had high total aerobic counts (>8 log) and total coliform counts (>5 log).These results are indicators of consumers' risk perception and preferences; the observed microbial loads highlight the need for improved hygiene practices associated with meat sold to consumers in Nigeria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4315/1541-9576-41.3.274

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These reports have focused on the food safety knowledge and practices among animal handlers and meat processors.

    “These reports have focused on the food safety knowledge and practices among animal handlers and meat processors [[13], [14], [15]].”

    From Knowledge and self-reported food safety practices among meat consumers in Ilorin, Nigeria. (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction says the study surveys consumers’ attitudes and risk perception and evaluates the hygiene of retail meat. The Questionnaire design section confirms that respondents were meat purchasers, not animal handlers or meat processors. Although the paper discusses processors’ role in meat safety, it does not focus on their food-safety knowledge and practices. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The unsatisfactory knowledge level reported in this study could be because consumers usually believe that food safety is more of the responsibility of meat processors, food safety inspectors, and regulating agencies than themselves.

    “The unsatisfactory knowledge level reported in this study could be because consumers usually believe that food safety is more of the responsibility of meat processors, food safety inspectors, and regulating agencies than themselves [15,41,42].”

    From Knowledge and self-reported food safety practices among meat consumers in Ilorin, Nigeria. (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

    The survey results and Discussion report that most respondents assigned important meat-safety roles to processors, inspectors, and regulators, and rated processors as especially influential. They do not compare those roles with consumers’ own responsibility, so the claim that consumers see safety as more others’ responsibility than their own is not established. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The minimum required sample size was 382 individuals, calculated using a formula with p=53.8% from a Nigerian study, a 5% margin of error, and a 95% confidence level.

    “Applying this formula resulted in a minimum sample size of 382 individuals to be surveyed.”

    From Improving Public Health Intervention Design for Food-Borne Zoonotic Disease Control: Insights From a Situational Analysis of Meat Consumers’ Knowledge and Practices in Burkina Faso (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Guerrero, A., M. V. Valero, M. M. Campo, and C. Sañudo. 2013. Some factors that affect ruminant meat quality: from the farm to the fork. Acta Sci. 35:335-347. (Review.)
  2. Jabbar, M. A., and S. A. Admassu. 2009. Assessing consumer preferences for quality and safety attributes of food in the absence of official standards: the case of beef in Ethiopia. Presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing.
  3. Oluwafemi, R. A., O. M. Edugbo, E. O. Solanke, and A. J. Akinyeye. 2013. Meat quality, nutrition security and public health: a review of beef processing practices in Nigeria. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 4:96-99.
  4. Tay, L., and A. Jebb. 2017. Scale development. In S. Rogelberg (ed.), The encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  5. Umoh, J. U., and F. O. Mosimabale. 2002. Effective meat hygiene practices in an emerging economy. Proceedings of a National Workshop on Abattoir Management and Public Health. Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association in collaboration with Omni Agrik, Abuja, Nigeria.
  6. World Population Review (WPR). Nigeria population 2019 (live). Available at: https:// worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ nigeria-population/. Accessed 12 June 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Odetokun, I. A., Borokinni, B. O., Bakare, S. D., Ghali-Mohammed, I., & Alhaji, N. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Ilorin (NG)
  • Public Health and Epidemiology Dept., Niger State Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Bosso, 920211, Minna, Nigeria
Corresponding author
Odetokun, Ismail A.
ORCID
Venue
Food Protection Trends
Publisher
International Association for Food Protection
Published
2021-05
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
274
ISSN
1541-9576 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4315/1541-9576-41.3.274
OpenAlex
W3159699743
Cited by
18
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Food Protection Trends (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
Keywords
consumer risk perception, retail meat safety, food safety, hygiene, microbial load, total plate count, total coliform count, processed meat, meat freshness, consumer attitudes, Nigeria

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review